Judging by media reports, it’s almost a done deal: Grace Poe will be the presidential candidate backed by President Aquino, and she has just about declared that Chiz Escudero will be her running mate.

Meanwhile Binay, battened down by corruption charges, is desperately fighting for his political life. There’s even a possibility that he might not be able to run for President. This could then leave Grace Poe unchallenged in her bid for the presidency.

To a large degree, Grace Poe’s popularity, based on her father’s legacy, stems from her being seen to be a candidate untainted by trapo and dynasty politics, even relatively independent of the President, with her declaration that he has to bear ultimate responsibility for the Mamasapano tragedy. And it can certainly be reasonably argued that she is a “lesser evil” to Binay and Mar Roxas.

The main criticism against Grace Poe is that she lacks sufficient experience. Her inexperience, however, should not be the key issue. Focussing on this tends to fall into the trap of trapo ‘personality’ politics. In any case, who wants the kind of “experience” of a Binay. The key issues should be her independence from trapo politics and her program for government.

Any semblance of Grace Poe being untainted by trapo politics will disappear if she runs as the presidential candidate of the Liberal Party. If she succumbs to the control of the Liberal Party she will be coopted — chewed up and spat out, metamorphosed into a trapo.

She has argued, however, that what differentiates her and Escudero is that they are independent of any political party. And she has appealed to President Aquino for his endorsement, even to continue his legacy.

Running as an independent does not protect you from the vested interests that control the political system. The ‘trapo’ system is code for a political system that represents the interests of Philippine capitalism, skewed by the dominance of the landed oligarchy. This severely curtails any ‘free will’ that Grace Poe might have to be a candidate ‘independent’ of the dictates of those who run the system.

President Aquino, after all, in faithfully implementing a neoliberal economic program, represents the interest of the Filipino capitalist class.

Therefore, a key question is, whose interests will Grace Poe serve? Those of the capitalist class or the masa? For example, what will be the economic program of a Grace Poe-led Presidency? Will it continue the neoliberal economic policies of privatization, deregulation and subcontractualization? Will the “export labor” policy of the previous regimes continue? What will a Grace Poe government do about the repayment of the country’s onerous debt?

Will a Grace Poe Presidency finally end the pork barrel system in the allocation of resources for the president and Congress?

Will a Grace Poe government put an end to the Visiting Forces Agreement and other treaties that revive the military bases and presence of the United States in the Philippines?

What will be the social welfare program of a Grace Poe government? Will it continue the band-aid, dole-out projects supposedly aimed at the ‘poorest of the poor’ ala CCT, or will it put in place a universal program of welfare benefits for health, education and other public services?

Will a Grace Poe government stand by working class women and against the Catholic Church in the implementation of the RH law?

Grace Poe has not made her position clear, on many these basic programatic issues, during her term as senator. And her claiming that she wants to continue the Aquino legacy does not bode well for the masa.

Even with the best of intentions, she cannot survive the system as an individual. The only chance that she will have of surviving the system is if she runs as a truly independent presidential candidate, that is independent of elite ruling class interests, mobilizing the masa who support her, on the basis of a radical, pro-masa platform.

Like this:

This is to inform you that I resigned as Akbayan member during its recently held 6th Regular Congress after it voted to continue the party’s alliance with the Aquino administration and its coalition with the Liberal Party.

I cannot defend, much less comply, with a policy to ally with an administration and ruling party whose aggressive neo-liberal and pro-US directions and designs have ran roughshod over the interests of the working class, the peasantry and the fishers and have forsaken the nation’s and the people’s sovereignty.

Many comrades advised me to remain in as much as the Aquino administration has only 13 months to go before it steps down from power. But I said those 13 months are forever – like a flowing stream that carries the mud of previous years and will pile up more before it reaches its destination.

I look forward to continue working with comrades and start working with new ones to strengthen the movement for socialism and participatory democracy, including comrades in Akbayan as individuals.

Attached is the speech I prepared for a debate on the alliance issue and also for my resignation in the event that the Akbayan Congress votedd in favor of the alliance policy.

Like this:

Break free from the P-Noy government; break free from the regressive and stifling coalition

We, the members and leaders of the national labor center Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO), inarguably comprise the overwhelming majority of the formal and informal workers’ sector of the Akbayan party-list. Most of our affiliates, in fact, are considered “Akbayan Labor.” Several of our key labor and urban poor affiliate organizations’ leaders were also Akbayan founding members, and were and still remain at the forefront of the electoral struggles and other campaigns of the party since 1998. Despite some differences between us on certain views, policies and other conflicts that emerged along the way, we had steadfastly maintained and clearly proven our commitment to the party – and we still do.Continue reading →

Share this:

Like this:

Walden Bello resigned as Akbayan representative over the President’s handling of the Mamasapano crisis. He was supposed to deliver this speech – his last as Akbayan representative – on Wednesday, March 11, but purportedly due to lack of quorum, the House adjourned.Continue reading →

While Walden Bello’s resignation as Akbayan congress representative should be welcomed, it has also exposed the crisis and failure of the left and progressive movement to put forward a viable alternative to elite rule. Furthermore, it has exposed the failure of the pragmatic electoral politics of the Philippine left.Continue reading →

Akbayan’s article in the Sunday’s Philippine Daily Inquirer (July 20, 2014, p. A14) stresses the importance and need for coalition politics. Leaving aside the rather patronizing tone, the article is also revealing in what it doesn’t say.

Akbayan is in a ‘coalition government’ with the ruling party, so this is clearly no ordinary coalition. This is a coalition with the ruling class in power and therefore has grave consequences for the progressive movement, the masa, and the entire nation.

The political character of the government

The question was also posed right from the beginning: What is Akbayan coalescing around? What is the political platform of this so-called coalition government? If you are in a coalition government, you should be clear on what is the reform agenda of this government.

Many of us in the Left believe that this is a government still wedded to a neoliberal economic program. Many of us believe that the government represents the interests of the elite. Does Akbayan agree with this, or not?

Pointedly, how does Akbayan assess the political character of the government? The article does not address this.

The article also defends Akbayan’s decision to transform itself from a party of ‘protest’ to a party of ‘governance’. Leaving aside the counter position of ”protest’ and ‘governance’, any political party worth its salt should aim to be in power – to be the government. The critical question is: Do you win government to work within and limit yourself to the existing system, or do you win government so that you can fundamentally transform the existing system?

Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) believes that we should win government to fundamentally change the system.

Governance and power

We also understand that being in government (‘governance’) and being in power are different things. Power also resides outside government, such as corporate power and the economic and military power of imperialist nations, which use their might to intervene in governments in order to protect their vested interests.

The woeful inability of Akbayan to contest and hold back the neoliberal economic agenda of the current government is testimony to this. Akbayan might have some positions in government, but to imagine that this is the same as winning government or being in power is to fool oneself and your supporters. To defend its line by arguing that it’s trying to influence the direction of government is farcical. The fact is that Akbayan is unable to influence the direction of government to the extent that it claims it can. Akbayan’s record under the PNoy presidency demonstrates this. You merely end up becoming co-opted in the system.

If you are using your positions in government for your own political purposes, such as access to resources to build your base, that’s a different matter. But please don’t claim that the aims are to influence and change government policy, and so on and so forth.

Some international examples

And we too study international events and examples. We believe that in Bolivia and Venezuela today, we have socialist parties and forces who have actually won government and are using this power to implement anti-neoliberal policies and change the system. This also includes mass mobilizations on a massive scale and people’s power participation in government. Here ‘protest’ and ‘governance’ are combined in a unified strategy and are not mutually exclusive.

In contrast, we also have the experience of the PT in Brazil and the ANC in South Africa, which are governments implementing pro-market neoliberal policies. These are traditionally considered to be progressive and Left parties which were able to win government.

The problem is the system

Our differences with Akbayan are also linked to an assessment of the nature of the economic and political system. Akbayan believes, according to the article, that the system has ‘limitations’. We, on the other hand, believe that the system itself is the fundamental problem. The system cannot be reformed. It needs to be replaced in order to implement meaningful and far-reaching changes.

These debates are as old as the hills — as old as the debates from the time of Karl Marx and onwards. Whether the capitalist state can merely be reformed, or whether it must be replaced with a fundamentally different type of state which represents the interest of the masses, was the historical dividing line between what came to be known as the social democrats and the revolutionary socialist currents in the international workers movement. Akbayan’s positions on this question have been ambiguous. The Inquirer article, however, further clarifies the PDSP-type social democratic leanings or character of Akbayan today.

As for electoral reform, we urge Akbayan to support and campaign for the anti-dynasty bills, the anti-DAP and anti-pork bills, the freedom of information bills, the genuine agrarian reform bills which are now key electoral reforms ignored by the president and the ruling party. Where does Akbayan stand on these key questions?

On the Disbursement Acceleration Program

Akbayan has openly supported President Aquino’s use of the DAP. The problem with DAP is that it is a scheme that reinforces political patronage, expands the “presidential pork” and tramples on the legislative’s prerogative to apportion the national budget. While we campaign for people’s right to participate in national budgeting and in law making, the DAP itself was a huge setback to the democratic principle, however limited, of the right of elected representatives’ to determine and allocate public funds.

So it is unconscionable for Akbayan not only to refuse to demand accountability from the President, but to even taunt and ridicule all those who support calls for the President’s impeachment.

On compromises

There are compromises and compromises. There should be a framework to base these compromises. Compromises that benefit and advance only the interest of a select few, such as Akbayan’s people in Cabinet and in government, are by no means principled. One of the main and guiding principle in opening up compromises should be whether it advances the interests and the struggles of the masses in general. Otherwise one ends up compromised and becomes opportunistic.

We don’t need lectures on compromises in coalition politics. Right now we need accountability from Akbayan on its role and activities in government, not just a superficial defense of its ‘tactics’. There has been no such accountability from this government, let alone the Akbayan leaders who are now in Cabinet and in leading positions in government.

Akbayan also asks us to keep hoping. In whom? The President and Akbayan? For what? For a miracle that the government will fundamentally change its course and genuinely address the dire needs of the masses?

A pragmatic plea

The article claims that this is not the politics of pragmatism but politics based on idealism. To ask us to continue to hope under these increasingly desperate socio-economic conditions, however, seems like a pragmatic plea to continue supporting Akbayan’s coalition with this government.

The masses are losing hope and large numbers have already lost hope in this government. So is Akbayan trying to say that we should ask the masses not to lose hope in this government? We cannot do that when we believe the masses have the right to think that this government is a hopeless one. This line of asking them to keep up their hopes in this government, will end up derailing the mass struggle, with disastrous consequences for the masses.

In fact, our responsibility is not to ask them to hope for a miracle, but to develop a genuine alternative to this government of elite rule and neoliberal economics. This is the big challenge that the Left faces today.